DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA

PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

                                SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER

Friday, 28th November 2008

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  88 / 2008

1) Vankayala Narasamma, W/o Late Venkataiah, 47 years.

2) Vankayala Prasanth, S/o Late Venkataiah, 13 years.

    Minor, Rep. by his mother guardian 1st complainant,

    Both are resident of Lingaladinne village, Mydukur Mandal,

    Kadapa district.                                                                       ….. Complainants.

Vs.

1) Shriram Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its

    Branch Manager, 4/620, 1st floor Gandhi Road,

    Proddatur, Kadapa Dist.

2) Shariram Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its

    Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, D.No. 10-3-206,

    M/4, 2nd floor, Opp. Krishna Reddy Hospital,

    Reddy and Reddy Colony, Tirupati.

3) Shriram Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office 3-6-478,

    3rd floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Opp. Indian Bank,

    Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.                                                   ….. Respondents. 

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 20-11-2008 in the presence of Sri K. Guru Murthy and Sri K. Srinivasulu, Advocates for complainant and Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R

(Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President),

1.                Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:-  The 1st complainant was the wife and 2nd complainant was the 2nd son of late Vankayala Venkataiah, S/o Venkataiah, who died on 3-4-2007.  Late Vankayala Venkataiah during his life time insured his life with the respondents and obtained three policies for Rs. 50,000/- each under policy Nos. NP 080600066534, dt. 9-8-2006, 2) NP 080600067123, dt. 10-8-2006 and 3) NP 080600068107, dt. 11-8-2006.   They were three types of benefits i.e. maturity benefit, death benefit and rider benefits.  In case of death during the term of the policy the respondents had to pay Rs. 50,000/- with vested bonus.  

3.                The deceased had two sons and two daughters namely  1) V. Venkataramana, 1st son, 2) V. Umamaheswari, a married daughter, 3) V. Prasanna another married daughter and 4) V. Prasanth, 2nd son.  The 1st son Venkatramana was a nominee under three policies.The insured died on 3-4-2007 living behind his nominee Venkatramana and the complainants.  On 4-4-2007 the nominee Venkatramana informed the death of the insured to the respondents.  All the documents were submitted to the respondents.  On 31-8-2007 the nominee Venkatramana died and the same was informed to the R1.  However, the 2nd respondent issued a reminder dt. 19-11-2007 in the name of  Venkatramana, who died.  The complainants were alone entitled to receive the claim amount from the respondents.  The respondents failed to pay the amount and failed to settle the claim also.  As there was no proper response, the complaint was filed for Rs. 1,50,000/- under three policies with interest @ 12% p.a. from 3-4-2007 till payment jointly and severally and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and deficiency of service and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs. 

4.                The R1 filed a counter denying all the allegations.  There was no relief against the R1 and so the R1 was not a necessary and proper party and they were service providers by collecting the premium and forwarding proposal forms and claim forms to the higher authorities.  The Head Office was a proper party.  The respondent was providing limited service to Sriram Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,  having registered office at Hyderabad.  Since the complaint was not filed against a proper and necessary party for the relief claimed.  The complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

5.                The R3 filed a counter adopted by R2 with a memo.  Vankayala Venkataramana was a nominee to the policy holder namely V. Venkataiah, who took three policies for Rs. 50,000/- each.  In all the three policies Venkatramana was nominee.  On 4-4-2007 Venkatramana sent a letter to the company that his father died on 3-4-2007.  The respondent came to know that the nominee Venkatramana also died on 31-8-2007.  In the family members certificate dt. 27-3-2008 issued by Tahsildar, Mydukur, the policy holder V. Venkataiah had wife and two daughters and another son as legal heirs.  The insured amount was the estate of the policy holder.  The complaint was not maintainable because it was not filed by the other two daughters.   The legal heirs of the deceased policy holder should obtain succession certificate from the competent Court of Law since the nominee died.  The nomination was only payment to the nominee as full discharge.  When the nominee died the other remaining legal heirs would succeed estate.   The present complaint without succession certificate was not maintainable.  The respondents shown in the petition were wrong parties.  There was no R1 as described in the petition.  The company had Divisional office at Tiruapti and Head Office at Hyderabad within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum, Chittoor and District Consumer Forum, Hyderabad respectively.  There was no branch at Kadapa District.  The collection center was at Proddatur.  Thus the petition was not maintainable.  

6.                After receipt of the death of policy holder from the nominee the company forwarded the claim forms to the nominee for submission vide letter dt. 15-6-2007. But Venkatramana did not file.  So the company sent reminders on 20-10-2007, 19-11-2007 and 20-12-2007.  It was intimated to the nominee again on 2-2-2008.  Therefore, the non-settlement of the claim would not amount to deficiency of service.  

7.                The nominee died on 31-8-2007, the reminder letters were not returned as “the addressee (nominee) Venkataramana died”.  There was a suspicion whether any other legal heirs of the deceased policy holder were interested towards nominee of the deceased policy holder and whether the nominee and the complainants were living together.  The deceased policy holder was attached to the nominee rather than the petitioners or other legal heirs during the life time.  The deceased policy holder, instead of nominating the wife nominated his eldest son as his nominee.  However, the succession certificate was necessary to receive the insured amount from the company.  The family members certificate dt. 27-3-2008 did not refer Venkatramana.  Filing of death certificate of Venkatramana was not sufficient.  Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

8.                     On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

i.                   Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?

ii.                 Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii.              To what relief?

9.                On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A7 were marked.   No documents were marked on behalf of the respondents.   The complainants filed written arguments on 27-11-2008 in the office. 

10.              Point No. 1 & 2  One Vankayala Venkataiah, S/o Venkataiah took three policies for Rs. 50,000/- each vide policy No. NP 080600066534, dt. 9-8-2006, another  policy No. NP 080600067123, dt. 10-8-2006 and the last policy No. NP 080600068107, dt. 11-8-2006 nominating his  son V. Venkatramana.  In all three policies Venkatramana was the nominee.  Ex. A1 to A3 were Xerox copies of policies issued by R2 at Tirupati.   There was no dispute about the policies.  All the three policies had maturity benefit, death benefit and rider benefits.   The maturity period for three policies was 2026.  While so the original policy holder V. Venkataiah died on 3-4-2007 leaving behind two sons and two daughters namely 1) V. Venkatramana (nominee), 2) V. Umamaheswari married daughter, 3) V. Prasanna, married daughter and 4) V. Prasanth 2nd son and wife Narasamma.  The nominee V. Venkatramana also died on 31-8-2007.  The complainant filed Ex. A4 a Xerox copy of family members certificate dt. 31-3-2008 issued by Tashildar, Mydukur that the family members of Venkataiah were Vankayala Narasamma, Uma Maheshwari, Prasanna and Vankayala Prasanth.  Venkatramana was not shown as family member of Venkataiah in Ex. A4, because Venkatramana died on 31-8-2007.  The scope of the nominee was only to receive the amount of the policy holder.  It was not for him entirely while the other legal heirs of the deceased were alive.  In the present case the other legal heirs i.e. the wife, another son and two daughters of the deceased policy holder Venkataiah were alive as per Ex. A4.   The complainants filed death certificates of Venkataiah and Venkatramana.  The Xerox copies of death certificates were Ex. A5 and A6.  After the death of Venkataiah, the original policy holder, it was intimated to the respondents.    The respondent company forwarded the claim forms A, B, C and D to Venkatramana.  But they were not submitted.  The company sent reminders on different dates including a reminder – II dt. 19-11-2007  to Venkatramana to forward the requirements for early settlement.  The Xerox copy of reminder sent by R2, dt. 19-11-2007 was Ex. A7.  The copy of Ex. A7 was sent to Branch Manager, Sriram Life Insurance Co. Ltd., collection center, Proddatur.   Since Venkatramana nominee died on 31-8-2007, none of the family members including the  complainants did not submit the claim forms to R2.  Since the original policy holder Venkataiah and his nominee Venkatramana both died, the other legal heirs of the original policy holder are entitled to receive the policy amount under the three policies subject to production of a succession certificate obtained from a competent court of Law.  Therefore, at this stage there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.  Hence, the complainants are not entitled to receive any amount at present.  All the legal heirs of the original policy holder should get a succession certificate and produce before the respondents company for receiving the policy amount.   Hence, the points are answered accordingly. 

11.              Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.   Directing the legal heirs of the original policy holder including the complainants to submit a succession certificate obtained from a competent court of law to the respondents for receiving the claim amount. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 28th November 2008
 
 
 
MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    :       NIL                            For Respondent :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -  

Ex. A1         X/c of policy No. NP080600066534 issued by R3, dt. 9-8-2006.

Ex. A2         X/c of policy No. NP080600068107 issued by R3, dt. 11-8-2006.

Ex. A3         X/c of policy No. NP080600067123 issued by R3, dt. 10-8-2006.

Ex. A4         X/c of family members certificate issued by Tahsildar, Mydukur,

dt. 31-3-2008.

Ex. A5         X/c of death certificate issued by Village Revenue Officer, Lingaladinne,

dt. 11-4-2007.

Ex. A6         X/c of death certificate issued by Village Revenue Officer, Lingaladinne,

dt. 21-1-2008.

Ex. A7         X/c of reminder – II issued by R2, dt. 19-11-2007.

Exhibits marked for Respodnents : -         

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT
Copy to :-

1) Sri K. Gurumurthy and K. Srinivasulu, Advocates. 

2) Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate. 

         1) Copy was made ready on     :

2) Copy was dispatched on      :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :
 
 
B.V.P.                                               - - -